Why, at this point of the debate would this be in question?
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution. It has been explained to you that it was Darwin himself who first brought up living fossils and to this day they do not present a problem for evolution as they are predicted and necessary for evolution. Not all animals evolve at the same rate and so if there was a complete absence of living fossils I would expect that would call evolution into question much more than a few hundred examples of their existence.
This hardly seems to be an atomic bomb on evolution. There are plenty of ways that evolution could be found to be false, this is not one of them. Though you have stated that it should be obvious I am at a loss to understand how, and apparently so is everyone else. Perhaps you have simply mistaken what should and should not be the results of evolution? If Darwin suggested that living fossils should exist, all biologists suggest they should exist, and you have not provided a reason why they should not exist; is it not more likely you have misunderstood the concept?
The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change. One can easily recognize almost all of them by appearance alone.
There are examples that you have posted however that others have pointed out to you are not in the same family. If that is the classification system that you choose to use in support of your argument I think it dishonest to discount those that are not in agreement with your argument. The common approach in honest discourse is to provide a reasonable and detailed reason why you disagree with the classification system in regards to that particular example.
Though I agree that the examples you provide can be recognized often by mere appearance, mere appearance is not the only method of classification in biology. To suggest that this is the correct method means that you disagree with current classification methods without providing a reasonable explanation why. This also begs the question of why you would choose this system as a means to support your argument.
If evolution were true then why are there so many hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of the species while there is virtually nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms?
There
should be hundreds of examples of so called 'non-evolution' as you have described it. They are all fine examples of living fossils, as predicted by evolution, and I am sure that all participants in this thread could provide many more examples for you. The question that keeps coming up however is why you think this supports your argument.
The problem with your claim of '
nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms' is that first the statement is so poorly worded I wonder if you realize the humor. Your whole argument is based upon a lack of change in these organisms so it seems obvious that there would be nothing in the fossil record to establish a change in these organisms that even you claim did not take place. If however you meant to say there is nothing in the fossil record to establish changes between
any organisms then you are making a dishonest attempt to have others post examples when it is quite obviously off topic. There are threads for such a request, or you could certainly make your own.
The few examples that my opponents have posted are both pitiful and highly suspect at best.
There are many more examples and it would be interesting to see you attempt to prove their authenticity to be suspect.
None of us who converted from evolution take those examples seriously any longer because we learned in our studies the details of those discoveries and how the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory.
Manipulation of facts is fraudulent and there is just such a thread active on the forum right now. You could be the first to provide an actual example.
I hope this answers it. Have a nice day.
No, not really. Thank you and have a nice day also.